Obama’s decision on the super PAC: Stand on principle or increase the risk of losing re-election?

Sometimes, my beloved New York Times tends to get too liberal and idealistic for my Democratic tastes.

One of the things I love about The Times is that it holds politicians to extremely high standards — as it should, of course — and seldom lowers the bar.

But in an editorial last Wednesday, The Times held President Barack Obama to an unrealistically high bar, in my opinion, when it chided him for deciding to cooperate with a super PAC called Priorities USA Action.

The Times said that Obama’s announcement “fully implicates the president, his campaign and his administration in the pollution of the political system unleashed by Citizens United and related court decisions.”

By agreeing to play ball with a super PAC, the editorial went on, Obama “gave in to the culture of the Citizens United decision that he once denounced as a ‘threat to our democracy.’ ”

The editorial ran under the headline, “Another Campaign for Sale.” The subhead said, “President Obama reverses position and joins the sleazy ‘Super PAC’ money race.”

Yes, the super PAC system is sleazy, and, yes, the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision of 2010 was crazy and has further tainted our elective system. And, yes, it would be great if President Obama had decided to forgo the super PAC route.

But at what cost? Everyone knows the power of money in politics…If you (or somebody supporting you) can go on TV and say your opponent is a dipstick thousands of times more than you can say the same about him (or her), you’re likely to prevail. You have to respond to negative ads, and you need just about equal resources to even try to effectively counteract them.

The Times’ editorial board thoroughly dislikes all the Republican candidates and will undoubtedly endorse Obama for re-election. So, what it was doing in this editorial, it appears to me, was calling on Obama — its candidate — to take the biggest gamble of his political life and run without super PAC support.

Two days after the editorial was published, The Times ran five letters to the editor about the editorial.

Two of the writers sided with The Times’ editorial, and three took Obama’s side.

One of those who sided with The Times, Paul Bloustein of Cincinnati, said: “President Obama is a very principled man, until he isn’t. His decision to use super PAC money in his re-election effort is hugely disappointing…fear of being a one-term president has trumped principle.”

The other writer who sided with The Times, Margaret McGirr, Greenwich, CT, said: “It doesn’t get better than this: watching the very same people who scolded Supreme Court justices for their decision on campaign finance defend setting up a super PAC.”

I agree, however, with the letter writers who said Obama was left with little choice, if he hoped to be re-elected.

Douglas J. Cocuzza of Hackettstown, NJ, said, “You don’t bring a knife to a gunfight. You are forced to bring a gun or not participate in the fight.”

Also using a fight analogy, Mike Cockrill of Brooklyn said: “If you’re in a boxing match and the judge says you can use chairs, you’d be a fool not to grab a chair when your opponent comes after you with one. Later in the recovery room, you can both discuss whether the chair rule is a bad one.”

(Don’t you love that last line?)

William D. Bandes of Roseville, CA, got the last word:

“You write that President Obama is ‘telling the country that simply getting re-elected is bigger than standing on principle.’ Getting re-elected is bigger than surrender, better than handing the reins over to those who bought government by giving us Citizens United in the first place.”

To be precise, Bandes should have said “better than handing the reins over to those who are trying to buy government” because the super PAC people haven’t yet bought either the executive branch of government or both divisions of the legislative branch.

I completely agree with Bandes that this is a case where the stakes are simply too big for Obama to forgo super PAC money. I sure don’t want any of those Republican dipsticks in the White House. Do you?

What Obama needs to do is get re-elected, hope some conservative Supreme Court justices die or retire and then appoint some justices who will get the court off the errant course it’s been on under John Roberts, Anton Scalia and the dope whom Jack Danforth gave us, Clarence (Coke Can) Thomas.

Advertisements

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

21 Responses

Bandes was correct: “better than handing the reins over to those who are trying to buy government” is simply naive, wishful thinking. Corporate-formed and financed NGOs like ALEC that write specific legislation – that is then introduced by tame/pet pols nearly verbatim – in a multitude of states are proof positive of that. The Roberts’ court stance in Citizens United, indeed the ultimate (legal) conceit that corporations are ‘people’, reaffirm that position.

Closer to the topic, Obama’s “too big to fail” riff is disingenuous; no one individual is bigger than our country. Moreover with a perpetually divided Congress the ‘power’ of the presidency is usually weakened, and always reversible…no, far better to lead by example.

However, it seems the American people don’t want leaders these days, just cheerleaders for their baser emotions.

I would be very disappointed to see Obama take the high road by participating without a super PAC guarding his back. The Republican operatives I know would like nothing more than for Obama to unilaterally disarm.

As they say, “This ain’t bean bag.” It was a politically pragmatic decision that couldn’t have taken more than three seconds to make.
While the Citizens United decision is certainly a threat, I fear more the people who watch and are influenced by these ads. Having produced my share of negative political commercials over the years, I’m still amazed at how easily a segment of the population is influenced by this form of entertainment. After all, it is just advertising, yet some people can’t seem to delineate it from an item on the evening news. I suspect many may be the same folks who can’t wait for the coroner’s report on Whitney Houston (was it drugs or not?). It’s a pathetic reality that too many want to see and hear the negative about other people, especially those in high profile positions.

While a great majority of people will say they are not influenced by negative ads in politics, evidence suggests the opposite. And as long as that holds, consultants are going to produce them, regardless of Citizens United. Incidentally, the news media isn’t exactly guilt free in the trashing of people.

In regard to “buying the government,” the result of Citizens United is a legitimate concern. But, typically, Democrats kiss the ring, take the money and screw the contributors later so they can prove they haven’t been bought. The Republicans are a different story. After all, Citizens United IS the Republicans. Their motivation to bring the case that led to the decision was nothing less than public corruption in its purest and highest form. Only THEY would have that kind of audacity.

We have already experienced the result of corrupt influence from the likes of Haliburton, corporate TORT reformers and unregulated sub-prime lenders. Led by Karl Rove and his ilk, they did (and are still doing) more to damage this country than anything I can think of in the history of this nation. Now that they can hide corporate contributors with unlimited cash to advance their agenda in a federal election, this issue has reached critical mass.

Yet, I believe it can be their undoing. I hope Obama’s super PAC contributors are disclosed and at least some of the money used to attack the Republicans and their candidate for bringing the Citizens United decision. I would use segments oi the opposition’s commercials and attack the undisclosed contributors who funded them. That’s what we did in the earnings tax election in KC last year and it worked very effectively. It was the same situation, undisclosed contributors funding opposition to the tax.

In regard to the N.Y. Times editorial, I’ve seen many of the same kind from your beloved Star over the years. It has little to do with Obama and a lot to do with their position of being the moral compass for all to follow. I suspect most pragmatic people who read it will take it with a grain of salt.

You’re one of the articulate writers and incisive thinkers, too, David.

…Great insight from Pat, who has been studying human nature and politics for four decades while working as a consultant on a myriad of issue campaigns and for a wide range of candidates.

…I love the idea of Obama’s PAC disclosing all contributors and then smacking the Republican PACS for not disclosing (assuming that’s what unfolds). That technique did work beautifully in the E-tax campaign, when arch-conservative millionaire (billionaire?) Rex Sinquefield and his minions poured money into the unsuccessful effort to kill Kansas City’s largest revenue source.

P.S. I was proud to work with Pat and serve on the E-tax campaign steering committee. I made a couple of speeches and influenced, oh, about a dozen voters, I guess.

Priorities USA Action has a nonprofit arm that allows contributors to remain secret and will undoubtedly be where most of the cash ends up, Obama’s heartfelt pleas to the contrary

You are right however – corporate contributors with unlimited cash is a critical problem for the Republic, one believe Obamas exacerbates by playing the game; as long as things worsen only incrementally the mass of sheeple seems content to overeat, reproduce and watch the teevee to forget they can’t afford to do anything anyway.

I’d rather approach the issue in a cleaner fashion, head on, and force the electorate to take responsibility for themselves and the country. if that means a conflagration, so be it. Anything but this continued slow erosion of the national fabric…

This being Valentine’s Day, with love in the air and all that hoopla, I’m reminded of the rather cordial atmosphere that characterized Kansas City’s most recent mayoral campaign, one pitting a white man against a black man. It’s too bad this year’s presidential campaign, which likewise will ultimately pit a white man against a black man (or at least half black), can’t be marked by more of the same but on a much broader level. Of course, this is sheer fantasy on my part, wishful thinking, if you will.

Now, with regard to the issue at hand, I would prefer that Mr. Obama not go the super PAC route, but if he feels forced to then he should be willing to name the names of his big contributors, putting the ball squarely back in the Republicans’ court. I don’t think there should be any anonymity in these non-profit arms either. Get all the names out in the open where everyone can see them. The marriage between power and money is hardly a match made in heaven; arranging a divorce isn’t going to be easy; and the offspring we’ve already seen (e.g., the Citizens United case) are uglier than hell.

Despite the wingnut quality of the Republicans running for president, I think it will be difficult for President Obama to be reelected. I agree that he needs to do whatever he needs to overcome Republican PACS. After returning from Austin, and driving home through Texas, I was shocked at the “Joker” Obama billboards and racist signs in yards along the route.

Nick –
In my heart, I agree with you. But my head tells me to fight fire with fire in this case, only do it smarter. This is probably where I split with traditional liberal thinking. If Obama can be reelected, which I believe he can, he should support an initiative to have full disclosure in a super PAC, either by legislation or in the courts, or simply by regulation. Disclosure is the key. In any case, Obama MUST be reelected. We can’t afford to go back.
Pat

This just in, courtesy of The Star – Missouri Supreme Court strikes down ethics law aimed at curtailing the laundering of campaign contributions through committee to committee transfers … but only because the measure was tied to something totally unrelated to it. A temporary (we hope) setback to the idea of transparent campaigns on behalf of candidates/issues in the Show Me State. This practice of tacking one bill onto another has to end everywhere. Every matter needs to be voted up or down on its merits (or lack thereof).

Anyone who thinks the election will tip on who or who doesn’t disclose who’s donating to who is F-Bomb Crazy. If Pat Gray was spinning any harder he could be in his own geosynchronous orbit.

Comrade Obama, product of Chicago politics, and his re-election minions make Richard Nixon look like like Jesus forgiving his executioners.

This election comes down to one thing and one thing only; more or less government intrusion in our lives and businesses.

As the young boys of South Park so eloquently pointed out when exploring the value of voting and elections, our choices usually come down to a “douchebag” and a “turd sandwich”. This year will be no different.

Forget the whole issue of PAC money. The Media Matters relationship with the White House and left leaning media outlets will be a far bigger issue in the outcome of the election. Tucker Carlson and the Daily Caller are blowing the lid off in a series of reports this week. Even Alan Dershowitz is calling for an end to the relationship between MM and the White House.

Rick Santorum would be a disaster as President but he’ll be a helluva VP!

At this point whoever wins is a win for me. If a Republican wins, the economy will get better and I can purchase more guns. If B. Hussein Obama wins we get closer to civil unrest and I might get the chance to use a few thousand rounds of the ammo I’ve stockpiled and see if the meals I’ve purchased from food insurance.com are any good.

Don’t dismiss me as a crazy right winger. The only person I’ve given money to in this cycle is Ron Paul. Guess that just makes me crazy?

It’s great political theater watching Romney trying to transform himself into a conservative and Santorum is freakin’ nuts. Santorum has fired up the 10% of the population who had their 15 minutes of fame at Tea Party outings, those who long for Latin masses to return and those who believe same sex marriage will instantly lead to sex with aardvarks. Independent voters see this quackery and will vote for Obama or not vote at all.

I’m thankin’ you now, Fox, for hitting the nail on the head and for expressing it in such a funny way — “those who long for the Latin Mass.”

I see that Obama’s approval is back up to 50 percent and he leads every Republican candidate in head-to-head match-ups.This could end up being an overwhelming win…As I’ve said before, he’s the only candidate who makes sense when he talks and who has been consistent in his actions and philosophy. Who wants a guy who drives all over the road and likely goes off a bridge?

For every poll that shows Obama ahead of any Republican I can show you two that show him losing to any Republican. Polls have the same value as a good morning dump. They make people feel better but are no indication of what’s really going on in your body, other than not being constipated.

Just take a look at Greece. That’s where we are headed with Comrade Barack. Anarchy! 10,000 rounds of ammo and two months worth of food, water and medication is what you’re gonna need to survive. Hunter Thompson is spinning in his grave trying to get back to Owl Farm.

Personally, I can’t wait to water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants. It’ll be a good “ethic” as opposed to ethnic cleansing. We have gotten way out of touch with the Judeo Christian principles and work ethic that this country was founded on. Too much of anything is bad; drugs, food, booze and even freedom. I look forward to the battle in the streets. I may die, but not before I take out at least 100 of the “opposition”.

Oh, by the way the IBEW, AFLCIO, UAW, hell, ALL the Union Boys…….don’t count on them for tactical or battlefield support. They’re on our side! Best you can hope for is some help, if you wanna call it that, from the NEA and SEIU.

If the community organizer gets re-elected that scenario has a better than 50% of coming to life. Under a new Republican administration, not a snowballs chance in hell.

Fox — I do not have time to invent commenters. It’s time consuming enough to get this blog out once or twice a week and attend to my other “retirement” duties, such as golf, long lunches. smoking cigars on my patio when weather permits, and tending to my hat collection.

No, Smartman is real — although, I must confess, I’ve never met him and may not.

Some people think I invented the remarkable Hubartos vanDrehl, the Prince of Paonia, the Mystic of the Mountains. But. no, he too is very real — my first childhood friend. He does go by another name to keep the government happy, but he’s the Real Deal.

Jim, the real skeptic out there will now say that the Silver Fox is also a product of your imagination and has simply entered the discussion at this point to provide cover for both Smartman and Hubartos. The plot thickens. No, I really don’t have a problem with the use of colorful nicknames by people who prefer to remain pretty much anonymous in the blogosphere, but I do have a problem with the use of acronyms in stories that are never identified at some point in the story. Case in point, the LISC that appeared in both yesterday’s front page story in the Star and yesterday’s “As I See It.” I had to resort to a search engine to learn that LISC stands for Local Initiatives Support Corporation.